Dec 2019 electorates

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Jan 5, 2020 23:39:54 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Here's a first go at Wales, using Electoral Calculus' estimates of ward electorates:

What this does illustrate is that the next Boundary Review is likely to be very favourable to Labour in Wales. I've looked at the partisan data columns (I deliberately didn't do that when drawing that first go), and Electoral Calculus' large-pinch-of-salt notionals give:
Labour 20 (-2)
Conservative 10 (-4)
Plaid Cymru 2 (-2)

Several seats on that first go are highly marginal (although I actively disbelieve some of these numbers!):
Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire (PC 47 over C)
Bridgend (Lab 414 over C)
Menai (Lab 883 over C)
East Flintshire (Lab 1137 over C)
Gower (Lab 1872 over C)
West Flintshire (C 1990 over Lab)
Newport West (Lab 2351 over C)
Vale of Glamorgan (C 2684 over Lab)

There are two others that would probably turn into very exciting/nervewracking election campaigns:
Carmarthen (notionally C 20269, PC 13726, Lab 13074, BXP 2162, LD 791)
Neath and Brecon (notionally C 20484, Lab 14353, LD 10373, PC 3037, BXP 2235, Grn 512, Others 839)

[cibwr]

and indeed the boundary commission did propose an Brecon and Usk Valley seat in the 1980s

[andrewteale]

My first draft of the North West, 73 seats:



HEALTH WARNING

This is based on electorates estimated by Electoral Calculus for wards which in many cases no longer exist. We can be sure that the final plan will not be this.

GREATER MANCHESTER SOUTH

Altrincham and Sale West (73096) - Unchanged.
Stretford and Urmston (72359) - Unchanged.
Worsley and Eccles South (75220) - Unchanged.
Blackley and Broughton (73373) - Unchanged.
Cheadle (74638) - Unchanged.
Wythenshawe and Sale East (76313) - Unchanged.
Manchester Withington (76350) - Unchanged.
Oldham East and Saddleworth (72184) - Unchanged.
Oldham West and Royton (73063) - Unchanged.
Salford and Eccles (71338) - Loses Orsdall ward to Manchester Central.
Manchester and Salford Central (72839) - Ordsall, City Centre, Hulme, Moss Side, Ardwick, Bradford.
Manchester East (73956) - Ancoats/Clayton, Moston and Miles Platting wards from Mancheter, plus Failsworth, Droylsden and Audenshaw.
Ashton and Stalybridge (72080) - the four Ashton wards, the three Stalybridge wards and Mossley.
Denton and Hyde (73235) - the three Denton wards, Dukinfield, the three Hyde wards and Longdendale.
Stockport (76512) - gains Reddish, loses Manor.
Hazel Grove (76008) - gains Manor.

GREATER MANCHESTER NORTH

Rochdale (71172) - Loses Healey ward to Rossendale and Darwen
Heywood and Middleton (72595) - loses Norden to Bury North.
Bury North (76368) - gains Norden from Heywood and Middleton.
Bury South (75152) - Unchanged.

MERSEYSIDE

Southport (70837) - Unchanged.
Sefton Central (69759) - Unchanged.
Bootle (74833) - Unchanged.
St Helens North (75593) - Unchanged.
St Helens South and Whiston (73035) - Loses Prescot East ward to Knowsley.
Liverpool Walton (74374) - Gains Tuebrook and Stoneycroft ward from West Derby.
Liverpool Wset Derby (69752) - Loses Tuebrook and Stoneycroft, gains three wards in western Huyton from Knowsley - Page Moss, Stockbridge and Swanside
Knowsley (74225) - gains Prescot East from St Helens South and Whiston, loses three wards to Liverpool West Derby as above.
Liverpool Riverside (71093) - Loses Mossley Hill ward to Garston and Halewood.
Garston and Halewood (75041) - Gains Mossley Hill, loses Woolton ward to Wavertree.
Liverpool Wavertree (73748) - Gains Woolton ward from Garston and Halewood.

WIRRAL AND CHESHIRE WEST

Birkenhead (75377) - The current seat plus Seacombe.
Wallasey (75616) - Loses Seaombe, gains Hoylake and West Kirby.
Wirral (70214) - All other Wirral wards except Eastham and Heswall.
Ellesmere Port (73689) - Gains Eastham and Chester Village ward.
Chester North and Heswall (73617) - Loses the Chester wards south of the Dee plus Great Boughton, extends up the Dee estuary as far as Heswall.
Chester South and Eddisbury (74775) - The successor to Eddisbury, gaining four wards from City of Chester.
Weaver Vale (70578) - Loses its Halton wards, gains the Tatton wards in Cheshire West, and realigns to the new ward boundaries.

CHESHIRE EAST

I had a different approach here which involved splitting Crewe.

Crewe West and Nantwich (74997) - Gains the Cheshire East wards from Eddisbury, loses Haslington and Crewe East to Congleton.
Crewe East and Sandbach (74204) - Basically the current Congleton seat,minus Congleton town, plus Haslington and Crewe East.
Macclesfield and Congleton (72559) - gains Congleton town, loses Poynton and Bollington to Tatton.
Tatton (75221) - gains northern parts of the Macclesfield constituency, loses High Legh ward to...

GREATER MANCHESTER WEST AND WARRINGTON

Warrington South (74033) - Much redrawn. Gains the Runcorn part of Weaver Vale and High Legh ward from Tatton, loses all the wards north of the Mersey.
Warrington West (75699) - Successor to Warrington North, gains the wards north of the Mersey from Warrington South, loses five wards to
Leigh and Warrington East (76684) - Birchwood, Culcheth, Poulton North, Poulton South and Rixton wards from Warrington, Astley Mosley Common and the three Leigh wards from Wigan.
Makerfield (75357) - Gains the Lowton wards from Leigh, loses Orrell and Winstanley and Wigan.
Wigan (74376) - Gains Orrell and Winstanley, losss Aspull and Standish to
Westhoughton (70012) - Tyldesley, Atherton, Westhoughton, Aspull and Standish.
Bolton South (71149) - Successor to Bolton South East: gains Crompton, loses Little Lever.
Bolton North (76495) - Successor to Bolton North East: gains Little Lever and Smithills, loses Crompton.

CUMBRIA AND NORTH LANCASHIRE

Barrow and Furness (74814) - gains Hawkshead and Ambleside.
Copeland and Workington (73792) - Copeland district plus Workington town.
Cumberland (72772) - the rest of Allerdale, plus three wards of Carlisle and six wards of Eden to make up the numbers. This could be improved.
Carlisle (74976) - Carlisle district less Burgh, Dalston and Great Corby.
Westmorland and Penrith (76030) - most of Eden and South Lakeland districts.
Morecambe Bay (74634) - Most of the current Morecambe and Lunesdale seat, plus parts of South Lakeland south of Kendal including Grange-over-Sands.
Lancaster (73908)- Loses Fleetwood, gains Garstong, the Lune Valley and Skerton to make up the numbers.
Blackpool North and Fleetwood (72659) - the current Blackpool North and Cleveleys plus Fleetwood.
Blackpool South (74193) - gains Claremont, Layton and Park from Blackpool North.
Fylde (71557) - Gains Larches ward from Preston.
Wyre and Preston North (70995) - Gains Ashton and Ingol wards from Preston.

EAST LANCASHIRE

Pendle (70951) - gains four eastern wards of Ribble Valley to make up the numbers.
Burnley (70699) - gains Read and Simonstone, Sabden, and Goodshaw ward from Rossendale to make up the numbers.
Rossendale and Darwen (73017) - gains Healey from Rochdale, loses Goodshaw (Rossendale) to Burnley and Fernhurst (Darwen) to Blackburn.
Blackburn (75637) - all the BwD wards north of the motorway.
Hyndburn (70910) - unchanged

CENTRAL LANCASHIRE

Preston (74543) - now extends south of the Ribble to include Penwortham, Walton-le-Dale and Lostock Hall.
South Ribble (76699) - loses Penwortham and Lostock Hall, gains Farington, Euxton and Chisnall.
Ribble Valley (72694) - much redrawn, swapping Farington for Clayton-le-Woods (from Chorley). Very much the "bits left over" seat.
Chorley and Horwich (77006) - the remainder of the current Chorley seat plus Blackrod, Horwich, Heaton and Lostock from Bolton Wset.
West Lancashire (73343) - unchanged.

[lancastrian]

MPs could do with seeing that before they decide on another review with the 5% tolerance.

[loderingo]

Wouldn’t it be better to pair Cumbria and Northumberland for 9 seats? Anyone for Penrith and Hexham?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Notwithstanding that they are in different regions so the BCE would be resistant, I don't think a massive unpopulated cross-Pennine constituency is a very good idea.

[minionofmidas]

Clearly what is required is a long snaky thinly inhabited broadly crescent-shaped seat connecting North Cumberland with the Forest of Bowland via Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire.

[finsobruce]

Jan 15, 2020 15:54:07 GMT minionofmidas said:

Clearly what is required is a long snaky thinly inhabited broadly crescent-shaped seat connecting North Cumberland with the Forest of Bowland via Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire.

A sort of Borismander?

[carlton43]

Jan 15, 2020 16:00:18 GMT finsobruce said:

Jan 15, 2020 15:54:07 GMT minionofmidas said:

Clearly what is required is a long snaky thinly inhabited broadly crescent-shaped seat connecting North Cumberland with the Forest of Bowland via Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire.

A sort of Borismander?

They look innocent enough but are quite poisonous you know!  It is the blond markings that warn.

[islington]

Jan 15, 2020 15:10:56 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Notwithstanding that they are in different regions so the BCE would be resistant, I don't think a massive unpopulated cross-Pennine constituency is a very good idea.

Yes, but will regions be a factor?

I started another thread about the changes HMG might make to the rules if it wants a 650-seat review in place by the next GE. I can't believe that, in all the circumstances, it would want to retain the current reference to EU constituencies. And I'm not sure whether there are any other 'off-the-shelf' English regional boundaries available for use, so my thinking was to remove the reference to regions altogether (although I did suggest a rule that the boundary of Greater London shouldn't be crossed).

I'd envisage that BCE would be able to cross the previous regional boundaries to achieve combinations that are near a multiple of the electoral quota. For instance, Milton Keynes UA is likely to be too big for two seats but too small for three. In the 2018 review, the BCE used EU-based regions and thus had no choice but to link MK with Buckinghamshire. But with the regional consideration removed, it would be possible to link MK with Bedfordshire or Northamptonshire instead if that resulted in a better overall scheme.   

Having said that, I do agree that a Cumbria/Northumberland seat is a terrible idea. But it's a terrible idea on its own (lack of) merits, not necessarily because it crosses a regional boundary.

[islington]

Jan 12, 2020 20:16:29 GMT lancastrian said:

MPs could do with seeing that before they decide on another review with the 5% tolerance.

Bear in mind it's Andrew's first stab (and a very creditable one in my view).

I'm sure a process of review and refinement would resolve many of the rough edges.

[loderingo]

Jan 15, 2020 15:10:56 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Notwithstanding that they are in different regions so the BCE would be resistant, I don't think a massive unpopulated cross-Pennine constituency is a very good idea.

I agree it would be a large seat with a sparse population but so are the existing Penrith and Hexham seats. 

I also agree with Islington that the BCE should be more willing to cross regional boundaries especially where you have an area like Cumbria at one end of a region.

The issue with not crossing the region boundary is that you then need to cross the Lancashire boundary at both the north and south ends. If you pair Cumbria with Northumberland then Lancashire gets 15 whole seats. You can simple abolish Wyre and Preston North  and go back to the old boundaries with a few tweaks.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Jan 15, 2020 17:08:22 GMT islington said:

Jan 12, 2020 20:16:29 GMT lancastrian said:

MPs could do with seeing that before they decide on another review with the 5% tolerance.

Bear in mind it's Andrew's first stab (and a very creditable one in my view).

I'm sure a process of review and refinement would resolve many of the rough edges.

I actually doubt that. There are enough awkwardly sized wards in numerous local authorities that one is forced into really nasty choices.

[J.G.Harston]

Jan 15, 2020 18:28:45 GMT loderingo said:

Jan 15, 2020 15:10:56 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Notwithstanding that they are in different regions so the BCE would be resistant, I don't think a massive unpopulated cross-Pennine constituency is a very good idea.

I agree it would be a large seat with a sparse population but so are the existing Penrith and Hexham seats. 

I also agree with Islington that the BCE should be more willing to cross regional boundaries especially where you have an area like Cumbria at one end of a region.

The issue with not crossing the region boundary is that you then need to cross the Lancashire boundary at both the north and south ends. If you pair Cumbria with Northumberland then Lancashire gets 15 whole seats. You can simple abolish Wyre and Preston North  and go back to the old boundaries with a few tweaks.

Cumbria did used to be in the same government region as Northumberland: (link)

[bjornhattan]

Jan 15, 2020 14:45:50 GMT loderingo said:

Wouldn’t it be better to pair Cumbria and Northumberland for 9 seats? Anyone for Penrith and Hexham?

Penrith and Hexham would be pretty bad - barring Alston most of Penrith's hinterland has very weak ties to Hexham.

That said, a better combination might be a Carlisle constituency losing Brampton and one or two other eastern wards, and then a Hexham and Brampton cross-border seat. Doing so would also probably mean you don't need Hexham to take in Berwick/Cramlington/Morpeth, all of which are poor pairings on the ground.

[minionofmidas]

Jan 15, 2020 16:00:18 GMT finsobruce said:

Jan 15, 2020 15:54:07 GMT minionofmidas said:

Clearly what is required is a long snaky thinly inhabited broadly crescent-shaped seat connecting North Cumberland with the Forest of Bowland via Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire.

A sort of Borismander?

To be that it needed to have a political purpose and not be drawn purely for our aesthetic edification!

[finsobruce]

Jan 16, 2020 14:44:15 GMT minionofmidas said:

Jan 15, 2020 16:00:18 GMT finsobruce said:

A sort of Borismander?

To be that it needed to have a political purpose and not be drawn purely for our aesthetic edification!

A psephomander then?

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 15, 2020 19:14:25 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jan 15, 2020 18:28:45 GMT loderingo said:

I agree it would be a large seat with a sparse population but so are the existing Penrith and Hexham seats. 

I also agree with Islington that the BCE should be more willing to cross regional boundaries especially where you have an area like Cumbria at one end of a region.

The issue with not crossing the region boundary is that you then need to cross the Lancashire boundary at both the north and south ends. If you pair Cumbria with Northumberland then Lancashire gets 15 whole seats. You can simple abolish Wyre and Preston North  and go back to the old boundaries with a few tweaks.

Cumbria did used to be in the same government region as Northumberland: (link)

The best thing about re-creating that old Northern region would be that the Conservatives carried it in December

[pepperminttea]

Jan 18, 2020 12:04:48 GMT @abiezercoppe said:

If they do stick with 650 seats, I think I am right in thinking Oxfordshire would gain an extra seat. I've tried to work out the best way to create a seventh seat; however, I am not having too much luck and it's not very pretty. Anyone have any ideas?

When I tried a 7 seat Oxfordshire (I don't know whether this will work any more as it was on old electorate numbers) this is what I did:

-Oxford West and Abingdon loses Kidlington and regains Oxford city centre from Oxford East.
-Wantage loses some areas of South Oxfordshire council area (Wallingford, Cholsey) to Henley.
-Henley loses the northern part of its constituency.
-A new seat of Bicester appears created from the eponymous town and environs, Kidlington (from Oxford West and Abingdon) and the northern part of the current Henley constituency.
-The remaining part of Banbury (the current Banbury seat being the biggest population growth area) then stretches south to gain the northern part of the current Witney constituency around the town of Chipping Norton. 

[evergreenadam]

Jan 18, 2020 17:59:55 GMT pepperminttea said:

Jan 18, 2020 12:04:48 GMT @abiezercoppe said:

If they do stick with 650 seats, I think I am right in thinking Oxfordshire would gain an extra seat. I've tried to work out the best way to create a seventh seat; however, I am not having too much luck and it's not very pretty. Anyone have any ideas?

When I tried a 7 seat Oxfordshire (I don't know whether this will work any more as it was on old electorate numbers) this is what I did:

-Oxford West and Abingdon loses Kidlington and regains Oxford city centre from Oxford East.
-Wantage loses some areas of South Oxfordshire council area (Wallingford, Cholsey) to Henley.
-Henley loses the northern part of its constituency.
-A new seat of Bicester appears created from the eponymous town and environs, Kidlington (from Oxford West and Abingdon) and the northern part of the current Henley constituency.
-The remaining part of Banbury (the current Banbury seat being the biggest population growth area) then stretches south to gain the northern part of the current Witney constituency around the town of Chipping Norton. 

Would it create any new marginals?